Tuesday, May 24, 2016

King Bernie

Here's the appetizer. I just discovered a hilarious meme:
Number of 20-year-olds who just heard a Clinton conspiracy theory from the '90s and think they're onto something BIG
This evinced a classic response: "Dude, did you know that her husband once delayed air force one for a haircut that caused the suicide of someone in his cabinet? Why isn't the media talking about this?"

Here's the main course. David Brooks asks: "Why is Clinton disliked?" She was the most popular woman in America little more than a year ago, according to polls. Everything changed very rapidly.
It’s only since she launched a multimillion-dollar campaign to impress the American people that she has made herself so strongly disliked.

The second paradox is that, agree with her or not, she’s dedicated herself to public service. From advocate for children to senator, she has pursued her vocation tirelessly. It’s not the “what” that explains her unpopularity, it’s the “how” — the manner in which she has done it.
No no no NO.

So rapid a change cannot have any relationship with anything she has done.

Shorter Brooks: "Hillary is too career-oriented, and people don't like that." The same thing could have been said about Joan of Arc. Tellingly, the same thing is not said of any number of men who maintain a laser-like focus on their ambitions.

Even thought the facts are as obvious as a Yeti in the swimming pool, Brooks refuses to see them. When you talk to Hill-haters, they do not say: "You know what's wrong with Hillary? Her problem is that she's a workaholic." Hill-haters say nothing of that sort. Hill-hate is based on something very different.

Hillary's real problem is not Hillary; her problem comes from without.

She has been subjected to a nonstop villification campaign across the entire media spectrum, a campaign which has been particularly virulent in those areas of the internet where the young congregate. Brooks cannot admit this simple fact because he refuses to confess the degree to which our lives are ruled by propaganda (and also because he is too old to venture where the young congregate).

The mainstream media has always hated the Clintons; see Conason and Lyons The Hunting of the President. The right-wing media blasts her daily, as one might expect; this has become part of the background noise of politics.

The third propaganda force has been the most devastating. I speak, of course, of Bernie Sanders and his disgusting, maniacal cultists.

The BernieBullies captured the online conversation, particularly social media and Reddit, which has been of immeasurable importance in this election.

Liberals still don't understand the importance of that battlefront. Progressives don't understand how easy it is to control the field with a troll army. I've been telling people for years to be wary of social media; this election justifies my concerns.

(As for Reddit: We all know that Markos Moulitsas took Obama dollars in 2008. I presume, but cannot prove, that something similar occurred in this cycle vis-a-vis the current powerhouse, Reddit. It is a measure of the declining fortunes of Daily Kos that Moulitsas is no longer considered worthy of purchase.)

Indicators. In future elections, there will be other intraparty wars. How will we be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys? Here are some things to look for:

Whenever one online faction acts like a pack of rabid attack dogs, vote the other way.

Whenever one online faction won't let the other side speak, vote the other way.

Whenever one online faction routinely accuses all dissenters of being "shills," vote the other way.

Whenever one faction spews incessant propaganda portraying the opposing force as a conspiratorial powerhouse, vote the other way.

Whenever one faction tells you to hate Paul Krugman and love Maureen Dowd, vote the other way.

Whenever one faction has the endorsement of either Zbigniew Brzezinski or his daughter Mika, vote the other way.

Whenever one faction launches attacks which mirror those heard on right-wing sites, vote the other way.

Whenever one faction is better known for low insults than for dry wit, vote the other way.

Whenever one faction adopts the Stone rules -- attack attack attack; never apologize; always accuse the other side of every imaginable sin -- VOTE THE OTHER WAY.

Mobs are easy to spot. They're the ones with the torches and pitchforks.

King Bernie. The Clinton forces woke up only belatedly to Bernie's schemes.
“I don’t think he realizes the damage he’s doing at this point,” one ally said of Sanders. “I understand running the campaign until the end, fine. But at least take the steps to begin bringing everyone together.”
Bernie is still doing everything he can to elect Trump. Do not trust him.

His capacity for hypocrisy remains boundless:
"If we take your assumption and Clinton’s supporters’ assumption of the logical conclusion, you know what we should do? We should go back to a monarchy and not have any elections at all,” Sanders added.
Sanders is the one who wants to establish a monarchy. Millions more voted for Hillary than voted for Sanders. That's called Democracy.

As seen in the previous post, Sanders tried to rig the Nevada election to insure that he got more delegates, even though it is an incontrovertible fact that the majority of voters in Nevada wanted Hillary. And yet the BernieBullies still pretend that they were the injured party. I'll say it again: The simple fact is that if each primary election were held properly -- direct democracy, no caucuses, no open primaries -- Hillary's massive lead would be unquestionable and unconquerable.

The Atlantic understands that Bernie Sanders' talk of "democracy" is pure sham:
The campaign has also opened itself up to criticism over its superdelegate strategy. Sanders called for “a serious discussion about the role of superdelegates,” a group of party elites and elected officials who can support either Democratic candidate, in a CNN interview this weekend. “The current situation is undemocratic,” he said. “It is ill-advised, and it needs to change.” But he seemed to hold out hope that superdelegates may still side with him, even if he does not win the most pledged delegates. The campaign has previously suggested it will fight for superdelegate support even if Sanders loses the popular vote, a strategy that has led to headlines like “Bernie Sanders’s Undemocratic Plan to Win the Primary.” Pronouncements that the campaign is willing to pursue an undemocratic strategy could hurt the candidate’s credibility with voters, whose loyalty he will need if he wants to make long-term progress on his policy ideals.
We have to hold the line against Bernie's evil scheme to establish open primaries, thereby allowing Republican ratfuckers to game the system. We have to support Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is trying to keep Bernie from making our primary system worse.

Primary reform is a good idea, but only if it is of the right kind. The list of desiderata comes down to three items:

1. Direct democracy
2. No caucuses

The fact that Bernie won't sign on to all three tells you who he is really working for. (Personally, I would suggest a couple of other ideas: Universal rules for all states, and a single nationwide primary voting day.)

Here's the dessert. Riverdaughter has it exactly right...
But the thing that drives me nuts about Oliver’s piece and Greg Sargent asking if the primary process needs to be reformed yadayadayada, is why now? Why now, guys? This process was exponentially worse in 2008. We saw it on C-Span during the rules committee hearing when reapportionment of one candidate’s pledged delegates gave the other candidate the win.

You know, no one heard a peep from these same belligerent assholes about how unfair the system was in 2008. It’s only this year when their “more deserving male” candidate is losing by a wider margin because of closed primaries that we’re all supposed to have conscioussness raising sessions to talk about the primary system clustrfuck. When WE pointed out how the assholes were definitely, undeniably and in full daylight rigging the system against Clinton in 2008, we were called “bitter knitters”. Now, we have to be careful not to upset the fee-fees of the same bad actors.
If my three desiderata had been in force in 2008, President Hillary would be thinking about her library right now.
>>see Conason and Lyons The Hunting of the President

They've made a free subset of the book titled The Hunting of Hillary. It's available here - http://bit.ly/1MMXxTr.

>>Markos Moulitsas took Obama dollars in 2008

I'm pretty sure that I've seen some Clinton ads on Daily Kos this time. She didn't make that mistake twice.

Mobs: The internet mobs started in 2000. We Gore supporters were viciously attacked. The Obama mobs sounded just like them, and so do the Bernie mobs. Same people?

>>a single nationwide primary voting day.

Something I read a couple of years ago pointed out that the problem here would be that someone would have to already be nationally known, and/or have access to a ton of money, in order to run for President. One way to get around that would be to have four regional primaries, and have them alternate being first, second, and so on - http://bit.ly/1TV8cKK.

Bernie demanded a canvass of the Kentucky primary votes. It will take place Thursday morning. I wonder who pays for that. Need to use my mad Googlz skillz.

He would probably garner all of 0 to 1 delegates.
As to the Riverdaughter quote, those bad actors were WRONG about Obama. They thought he was some kind of liberal. And those of us who tried to tell them he wasn’t were booed and shouted down and banned from so-called progressive websites.

Why should we trust their judgment about their new favorite darling?
Update - for a recount, the initiator pays and must post a bond beforehand. Don't know if this applies to a "recanvass" but here's the link:

From a knowledgeable Kentucky poster at another web site, since it's a recanvass and not a recount it's free to the initiator.
Who is in the troll army? Hmmm. I was surfing around the other day and found a few photos of the Brooks Brothers rioters. A couple of faces seemed familiar and I zipped over to some photos from Las Vegas. It could be a pattern recognition paradox or I could be hallucinating but some of the Vegas people looked liked aged versions of the some faces from FL. Probably nothing. I'll move along now. (Oh, completely agree with the post, btw.)
Thanks for the link to the subreddit, Joseph!

I loved seeing them spoof their own.

"Have you guys seen this news site, Drudge Report? It's run by an independent, grassroots journalist -- so you know he's not a mainstream media shill! -- and he's digging into all the dirt that the Clintons tried to bury! You can't hide from TRUTH and FACTS, $hillary!"


[–]dorami_jonesSuperdelegate Whisperer 13 points 15 hours ago

Oh. My G-d. I laughed so loud I scared the dog.

I keep wanting to post links to your posts about Sanders, but just don't want to deal with the fall out. So many of my friends (real friends, not just FB) are just swallowing everything Bernie tells them to swallow (or rather, Stone). The feeling of dejavu is unbelievable. I don't really recall much of what happened in 2000, and mainly read about it later in Daily Howler posts. I actually voted for Gore, though worked with several people that voted for Nader, so I guess history repeats even quicker these days, with peoples attention spans shrunk down to a few weeks at most.

I think I'm just going to stick with my policy of never posting anything at all on FB. It's just bugs me that so many people I respect and care about are falling for this crap. I guess I could point them to the cannonfire blog when they post pro-Bernie stuff, but I doubt they'd read anything once they saw the banner at the top of the page. They mostly voted for Obama anyway, even though back then I tried to convince them he was a phony (and some of them spent his whole term justifying the crap he did.......which, admittedly wasn't ALL bad, but not anywhere close to what they voted him in for).
"Hillary is too career-oriented, and people don't like that." On the face of it, that is a stupendously stupid statement. She's running for office, and she's held office before, and that's bad? But it's not quite so stupid. It translates to "Vote Trump - he's not a career politician. He don't bullshit. He tells it straight, like a man". Which is a major theme of his brand.

It makes you wonder who on earth pays politicians their bribes. I mean it can't only be other politicians, can it? The reason why they're a bunch of dirty bullshitting liars isn't just to help themselves. Sure, from their point of view, it is. But that's not the point of view of those who pay them. Politicians serve. Those who think otherwise - especially if they're 20 years old and believe they know it all - need to reflect on the concept of "big business".

If they want to know "where it's really at", they could start by wondering why a billionaire casino owner is standing for US president on the platform of signing a massive cement contract.

(I think Trump will win. I also think he is soon going to become the war candidate. It's looking like a NATO-Russia nuclear war well before 2020.)
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?